Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 80-19
| Decision Date | 05 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-19,80-19 |
| Citation | 269 Ark. 19,598 S.W.2d 407 |
| Parties | James W. WILSON et ux., Appellants, v. LESTER HURST NURSERY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Griffin Smith, Little Rock, for appellants.
Hoover, Jacobs & Storey, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellee, Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., brought suit in the Pulaski County Chancery Court against appellants, Dr. James W. Wilson and his wife, Barbara J. Wilson, for the sum of $10,581 representing charges for landscape work performed by appellee at their residence in Little Rock, Arkansas. A lien had been filed by appellee; however, the court found it was not timely and dismissed it. The court granted personal judgment against the appellants jointly in the sum sought, plus interest from the date the bill was due until the date of the judgment, and interest on the judgment at 10% until paid. The court subsequently reduced the judgment to $10,160.38 and reduced the prejudgment interest to 6%.
On appeal appellants argue (1) the judgment was usurious; (2) it was error to award a judgment against Barbara J. Wilson; (3) the amount charged for the labor and material was unreasonable; and, (4) no prejudgment interest should have been allowed. We disagree with appellants on all four arguments.
The evidence reveals that Dr. Wilson went by Mr. Hurst's office with a landscape plan for his new home, and they agreed Hurst would do the job. Dr. Wilson testified Hurst told him the landscaping would not cost much and the charges would be in line. Hurst denied the cost being discussed. In any event, there was no agreed price for the contract.
On March 17, 1977, after the work was completed, appellee sent appellants a bill in the amount of $10,581. The bill included a statement that all bills were due on the 10th of the month and that payments past due more than 30 days would be charged interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Upon receipt of the bill, Dr. Wilson stated it was ridiculous and refused to pay it. The appellee attempted to file a lien, but the court found it to be untimely. Suit was filed by appellee for $10,581 plus sales tax, interest, and costs.
During the trial, both sides presented evidence and testimony favorable to their positions. Appellants' expert witness testified he thought a reasonable charge for the landscaping would have been between $5,000 and $6,000. He based his estimate upon the use of 70 crossties on the job site. He had not inspected the site prior to the work having commenced. Appellee produced an expert who had observed the site before and after the work was completed. He testified the quality of the work was good and the price was reasonable. He estimated 121 crossties were used on the job. This was the number of crossties appellee claimed to have used on the job.
The trial court rendered judgment against Dr. Wilson and his wife in the amount of $10,741.38 with prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% and provided the judgment would bear interest at 10% per annum. The judgment further provided if the amount was not satisfied within three days, it would become a lien on the property where the work was performed. The judgment was subsequently amended to the amount of $10,160.38, plus prejudgment interest at 6%, and interest thereafter at 10%.
Appellant correctly states the constitutional limit of 10% per annum interest; and, that if there is no agreement on interest, the rate will be 6% on contracts. The sanctions of Art. 19 § 13 Const. of Ark. apply only to charges in excess of 10% per annum. So far as we are able to determine, we have never before been called upon to declare interest of less than 10% per annum usurious. Appellant correctly cites several cases where we have held contracts to be usurious; however, none of the decisions involved a rate of interest less than 10% per annum.
Appellant cites the case of Lovell v. Marianna Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 267 Ark. ---, 589 S.W.2d 577 (1979), as authority for prejudgment interest being 6%. In Lovell we stated:
. . . Therefore, he is entitled to the proceeds of the certificates of deposit together with interest from the date of such loss of use, at the rate of 6% per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., Civ. A. No. 81-48
...be used to calculate plaintiffs' damages does not necessarily preclude recovery of prejudgment interest. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980) (prejudgment interest is available even though plaintiff did not recover the full amount sued for, so long as the......
-
WESTERN GULF SAV. & LOAN v. COMMERCIAL BANK AND TRUST CO., Civ. No. 89-1004.
...damage. Therefore, the court refused to award prejudgment interest on the property damage. Plaintiff cites Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980) for the proposition that exact damages are not necessary for an award of prejudgment interest. That case is dis......
-
All-Tech Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Simmons Foods, Inc., CA 06-1152 (Ark. App. 5/30/2007)
...All-Tech recovered less than it sought in its complaint, the test for prejudgment interest has been met. See Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980). Simmons also argues that an award of prejudgment interest is improper because AllT-ech never filed a motion seekin......
-
Shinn v. Shinn, 81-142
...sought relief from the trial court before appeal. We cannot consider the argument for the first time on appeal. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980); Hazen v. City of Booneville, 260 Ark. 871, 545 S.W.2d 614 (1977). Affirmed. HAYS, J., dissents. HAYS, Justice, ......